+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 21st January 2005
Sticking my county hat on, I have just been talking with other curators in Scotland about this problem... and as Alfie says instead of jsut asking contractors to 'do' the archaeology we have to create huge and 'tight' specification documents that are legaly binding within the conditions applied to a site. That way when a group send in a WSI (written scheme of Investigation) we can make sure that it fits our requirements, and that we will make sure they hold to every single word before we recommend signing off the condition. Usually the best pressure is a pissed off developer!.
We are also going to go along the line of 'high monitoring' - even though it means time better spent doing other real work!.
Of course I can also plug the Hotline.... new on BAJR... you see it, you contact me ... I contact the county or HSE officer. (except Lothians (as that would mean phoning myself up!)
Really good to hear Alfie working through the same problems in a safe and realistic way.
BAJR:face-approve:
Digger Article - the invisible man - 21st January 2005
Err, but BAJR, re. para 1 - isn't that what you're supposed to be doing anyway??? If you're not then it is no surprise that there is a problem. Welcome to the construction and development industry!
Obviously another problem is going to be underfunding/understaffing of the county mounties. Planning departments proper (if you see what I mean) have the problem and very few authorities have dedicated enforcement officers. Unless it's a listed building, it is is highly unlikely that anyone will pop round to look at a building that is going/has gone up. As you say, the archaeology is likely to be a bit of a poor relation. As I said, I see the only solution is rigorous inspection and enforcement, more akin to Building Control than Planning. Forget the IFA, it's nothibng to do with them. The GDC doesn't check people's teeth on the way out of the dentist to see if he's done it ok, the RIBA doesn't check architect's drawings.
The root of the thing I suspect is that the fundemental concept of commercial archaoelogy is flawed. But that's another story!
Digger Article - Mole - 21st January 2005
Fine, so a dodgy unit will get heavily monitored but does this really acheive anything for persistant offenders? Appart from fines etc to developers is their anything that can be done about the individual unit? We all know that most developers want any archaeological work out of the way as cheaply and as quickly as possible and their are units who rely on this and do keep getting jobs because they see that nothing material can really be done to them.
While I agree that monitors need to be able to use sanctions against developers is it much good when they can't do anything about the actual units? Surely an [u]archaeolocical </u>monitor should be able to do something about units who consistently don't keep up standards /practices.
When developers are fined etc do they see the unit/ contractor also being penalised? Or do the same names reapear when they next have to have archaeology done? Is it any wonder that many developers are antagonistic to us?
Digger Article - the invisible man - 21st January 2005
In theory developers might wish to avoid cowboy units, in order to avoid hefty fines (ho ho) and expensive delays in starting on site. There are not only loss of profit costs in delayed completion but extension of time costs to the building contractor for denial of acces to the site.
But in reality we need legislation requiring a license to carry out commercial archaeological work. Perhaps the much vaunted and much feared Valetta convention could be invoked to bring this about. Such a license could be withdrawn or suspended if necessary.
Also, the best eyes and ears are the diggers themselves.
Digger Article - Digger - 21st January 2005
The biggest fear that the IFA seems to have is that if they clamp down on slack RAO's that they will pull out of the IFA altogether resulting in reduced membership and a weaker position for the IFA. I think they see themselves as in a catch 22 situation when it comes to the well deserved steelcap up the whatsit for bad units.
Is there any way that County archaeologist and planners can insist on RAO's to tender for work or perhaps require other units to supply statements of standards/practise which would hold them legaly accountable to the County for shoddy work?
Before I get torn apart my thinking in this:
If IFA is to be any use in maintaining standards the problem of becoming irrelevant needs to be addressed. Otherwise can the County big boys get together to become the place of first complaint with a blanket ban on bad units undertaking work in the UK.
If the IFA wont fix it than we need to.
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 21st January 2005
Agreed that I should be monitoring every site... but until I have mastered the mysterious art of two places at once... I have to 'do what I can' the same is true for most of us... where more and more work is heaped on us... and less and less resources are provided. A County Archaeologist is now required to deal with Countryside Stewardship Schemes, Local Societies, Development Control, Report approval, In house Council requests, Historic Enviroment Record Collation, Standards checking, keeping up to date in every aspect of archaeology to have a handle on what is the latest thought, managing the consultations between large national industries, such as Water and Electrics or Roads and Transport. through in a few lectures, a request for a tourism leaflet and suddenly a simple job becomes a 'help me i am drowning' ...
It would be good for everyone to have a period of being a County for say 2 weeks... ... and strangley... there is not even a course to take to become one... you just have to 'know' all the legislation by magic.
Any hoo.... the diggers are best placed to see behind the neat site prepared for the regal site visit.
I hope that as developers time is money and the more money teh Contractor costs them through errors they are unlikely to be used again... and this soon gets round.
Digger Article - the invisible man - 21st January 2005
So what do you do after lunch?
So, we are as one, then: the only people who can or should monitor are curators, BUT (and in my own defence, I have always acknowledged this) they are hopelessly under-resourced - and lets be honest are always likely to be, until we get more enlightened government (local and national) and voters willing to stump up. Or we totally change the system... a man can dream.
So it seems we have to rely on the diggers to use the hotline, but the word needs to be spread beyond those who use this forum and look at the BAJR site.
IFA (or an equivalent body) can't do anything until/unless they become mandatory. It's ironic - on a building site every electrician, gas fitter, fork truck driver, and so on has to have a ticket to say he/she can do it, but effectively anyone can claim to be a contracting archaeologist!
Digger Article - Petethedig - 22nd January 2005
Well I've got to say that reading this was so interesting! And I thought you all had long beards with bits of detritus to be excavated at the end of each month. Reading about rogue units makes metal detectorist sound like they've come up in the world!
Evil to him who thinks evil.
Digger Article - troll - 24th January 2005
Whilst I agree that curators should be the ones doing the policing, we have to recognise that they are under-budgeted, under-staffed and on occasion, under-valued.A lot of their time is spent being a one-person band trying to tune an entire orchestra`s instruments whilst writing the music at the same time! Diggers are indeed the best eyes and ears on the ground-they see the reallity warts and all at ground level.This is precisely why the IFA chose to ignore everything they have had to say for years.Even going as far as removing the letters page from the Archaeologist because truth hurts.The IFA are, sadly irrelevant and, innefective.A clear line of communication between the troops at the daily coalface and curators can only be a good thing.[8D]
Digger Article - troll - 24th January 2005
metal detectorists on the way up? Those that liaise with professionals and have joined the 21st Century-yes.Those that continue to stick random holes all over the place,indulge in rallies
(heritage gang rape)and sell heritage that does`nt belong to them in seedy magazines and on E-bay-a resounding No! To those responsible detectorists-welcome to the family, you`re welcome. To the nighthawks, rally-types and muppets- you`re as welcome as a french kiss at a family re-union.
